Politics: A Treatise on Government
acknowledged that he would want the country of Babylonia for them, or
some one like it, of an immeasurable extent, to support five thousand
idle persons, besides a much greater number of women and servants. Every
one, it is true, may frame an hypothesis as he pleases, but yet it ought
to be possible. It has been said, that a legislator should have two
things in view when he frames his laws, the country and the people. He
will also do well, if he has some regard to the neighbouring states, if
he intends that his community should maintain any political intercourse
with them, for it is not only necessary that they should understand that
practice of war which is adapted to their own country, but to others
also; for admitting that any one chooses not this life either in
public or private, yet there is not the less occasion for their being
formidable to their enemies, not only when they invade their country,
but also when they retire out of it.
It may also be considered whether the quantity of each person's property
may not be settled in a different manner from what he has done it in,
by making it more determinate; for he says, that every one ought to have
enough whereon to live moderately, as if any one had said to live well,
which is the most comprehensive expression. Besides, a man may live
moderately and miserably at the same time; he had therefore better
have proposed, that they should live both moderately and liberally;
for unless these two conspire, luxury will come in on the one hand, or
wretchedness on the other, since these two modes of living are the only
ones applicable to the employment of our substance; for we cannot say
with respect to a man's fortune, that he is mild or courageous, but we
may say that he is prudent and liberal, which are the only qualities
connected therewith.
It is also absurd to render property equal, and not to provide for
the increasing number of the citizens; but to leave that circumstance
uncertain, as if it would regulate itself according to the number of
women who [1265b] should happen to be childless, let that be what it
would because this seems to take place in other cities; but the case
would not be the same in such a state which he proposes and those which
now actually unite; for in these no one actually wants, as the property
is divided amongst the whole community, be their numbers what they will;
but as it could not then be divided, the supernumeraries, whether they
were many or few, would have nothing at all. But it is more necessary
than even to regulate property, to take care that the increase of the
people should not exceed a certain number; and in determining that,
to take into consideration those children who will die, and also those
women who will be barren; and to neglect this, as is done in several
cities, is to bring certain poverty on the citizens; and poverty is the
cause of sedition and evil. Now Phidon the Corinthian, one of the oldest
legislators, thought the families and the number of the citizens should
continue the same; although it should happen that all should have
allotments at the first, disproportionate to their numbers.
In Plato's Laws it is however different; we shall mention hereafter what
we think would be best in these particulars. He has also neglected in
that treatise to point out how the governors are to be distinguished
from the governed; for he says, that as of one sort of wool the warp
ought to be made, and of another the woof, so ought some to govern, and
others to be governed. But since he admits, that all their property may
be increased fivefold, why should he not allow the same increase to the
country? he ought also to consider whether his allotment of the houses
will be useful to the community, for he appoints two houses to each
person, separate from each other; but it is inconvenient for a person
to inhabit two houses. Now he is desirous to have his whole plan of
government neither a democracy nor an oligarchy, but something between
both, which he calls a polity, for it is to be composed of men-at-arms.
If Plato intended to frame a state in which more than in any other
everything should be common, he has certainly given it a right name;
but if he intended it to be the next in perfection to that which he had
already framed, it is not so; for perhaps some persons will give the
preference to the Lacedaemonian form of government, or some other which
may more completely have attained to the aristocratic form.
Some persons say, that the most perfect government should be composed
of all others blended together, for which reason they commend that
of Lacedaemon; for they say, that this is composed of an oligarchy,
a monarchy, and a democracy, their kings representing the monarchical
part, the senate the oligarchical; and, that in the ephori may be found
the democratical, as these are taken from the people. But some say, that
in the ephori is absolute power, and that it is their common meal and
daily course of life, in which the democratical form is represented.
It is also said in this treatise of [1266a] Laws, that the best form of
government must, be one composed of a democracy and a tyranny; though
such a mixture no one else would ever allow to be any government at all,
or if it is, the worst possible; those propose what is much better who
blend many governments together; for the most perfect is that which is
formed of many parts. But now in this government of Plato's there are
no traces of a monarchy, only of an oligarchy and democracy; though he
seems to choose that it should rather incline to an oligarchy, as is
evident from the appointment of the magistrates; for to choose them by
lot is common to both; but that a man of fortune must necessarily be a
member of the assembly, or to elect the magistrates, or take part in the
management of public affairs, while others are passed over, makes the
state incline to an oligarchy; as does the endeavouring that the
greater part of the rich may be in office, and that the rank of their
appointments may correspond with their fortunes.
The same principle prevails also in the choice of their senate; the
manner of electing which is favourable also to an oligarchy; for all
are obliged to vote for those who are senators of the first class,
afterwards they vote for the same number out of the second, and then out
of the third; but this compulsion to vote at the election of senators
does not extend to the third and fourth classes and the first and second
class only are obliged to vote for the fourth. By this means he says
he shall necessarily have an equal number of each rank, but he is
mistaken--for the majority will always consist of those of the first
rank, and the most considerable people; and for this reason, that
many of the commonalty not being obliged to it, will not attend the
elections. From hence it is evident, that such a state will not consist
of a democracy and a monarchy, and this will be further proved by
what we shall say when we come particularly to consider this form of
government.
There will also great danger arise from the manner of electing the
senate, when those who are elected themselves are afterwards to elect
others; for by this means, if a certain number choose to combine
together, though not very considerable, the election will always fall
according to their pleasure. Such are the things which Plato proposes
concerning government in his book of Laws.
CHAPTER VII
There are also some other forms of government, which have been proposed
either by private persons, or philosophers, or politicians, all of which
come much nearer to those which have been really established, or now
exist, than these two of Plato's; for neither have they introduced the
innovation of a community of wives and children, and public tables for
the women, but have been contented to set out with establishing such
rules as are absolutely necessary.
There are some persons who think, that the first object of government
should be to regulate well everything relating to private property;
for they say, that a neglect herein is the source of all seditions
whatsoever. For this reason, Phaleas the Chalcedonian first proposed,
that the fortunes of the citizens should be equal, which he thought was
not difficult to accomplish when a community was first settled, but
that it was a work of greater difficulty in one that had been long
established; but yet that it might be effected, and an equality of
circumstances introduced by these means, that the rich should give
marriage portions, but never receive any, while the poor should always
receive, but never give.
But Plato, in his treatise of Laws, thinks that a difference in
circumstances should be permitted to a certain degree; but that no
citizen should be allowed to possess more than five times as much as the
lowest census, as we have already mentioned. But legislators who
would establish this principle are apt to overlook what they ought to
consider; that while they regulate the quantity of provisions which each
individual shall possess, they ought also to regulate the number of his
children; for if these exceed the allotted quantity of provision, the
law must necessarily be repealed; and yet, in spite of the repeal, it
will have the bad effect of reducing many from wealth to poverty, so
difficult is it for innovators not to fall into such mistakes. That an
equality of goods was in some degree serviceable to strengthen the bands
of society, seems to have been known to some of the ancients; for Solon
made a law, as did some others also, to restrain persons from possessing
as much land as they pleased. And upon the same principle there are laws
which forbid men to sell their property, as among the Locrians, unless
they can prove that some notorious misfortune has befallen them. They
were also to preserve their ancient patrimony, which custom being broken
through by the Leucadians, made their government too democratic; for
by that means it was no longer necessary to be possessed of a certain
fortune to be qualified to be a magistrate. But if an equality of goods
is established, this may be either too much, when it enables the people
to live luxuriously, or too little, when it obliges them to live
hard. Hence it is evident, that it is not proper for the legislator
to establish an equality of circumstances, but to fix a proper medium.
Besides, if any one should regulate the division of property in such a
manner that there should be a moderate sufficiency for all, it would
be of no use; for it is of more consequence that the citizen should
entertain a similarity of sentiments than an equality of circumstances;
but this can never be attained unless they are properly educated under
the direction of the law. But probably Phaleas may say, that this in
what he himself mentions; for he both proposes a equality of property
and one plan of education in his city. But he should have said
particularly what education he intended, nor is it of any service to
have this to much one; for this education may be one, and yet such as
will make the citizens over-greedy, to grasp after honours, or riches,
or both. Besides, not only an inequality of possessions, but also
of honours, will occasion [1267a] seditions, but this upon contrary
grounds; for the vulgar will be seditious if there be an inequality of
goods, by those of more elevated sentiments, if there is an equality of
honours.
"When good and bad do equal honours share."
For men are not guilty of crimes for necessaries only (for which he
thinks an equality of goods would be a sufficient remedy, as they would
then have no occasion to steal cold or hunger), but that they may enjoy
what they desire, and not wish for it in vain; for if their desire extend